Jerk takes fake gun into Sandy Hook School in Strasburg

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Originally Posted by CAVA1990
We're not talking about fully automatic weapons as those are pretty much already outlawed. However current thinking on the second amendment is that it's necessary for the populace to have sufficient firepower to defend itself against the government or others..



Perhaps notexplicitly but I've heard it from a number of Republicans, including Mike Huckabee. One reason for the amendment was the fear of the anti-Federalists that their opponents would raise a standing army, disband the militias and render the people powerless to resist the Federal government.

Something liberals do at their own peril is to dismiss the arguments of the other side. There is a strong anti-government sentiment underlying the pro-gun movement that people need to be cognizant of.

Whether those sentiments exist, and how best to deal with them, is another matter. I am speaking to what SCOTUS has said about the law. Its been a while since I looked at what the majority said in Heller, but ISTR them relying much more on the general legal background at the time, including english legal works, etc to establish an individual right, rather than on specific motives for the amendment (which were surely complex) And I have never heard that Mr Huckabee, with all due respect was known for insight into SCOTUS and its reasoning.

But of course if a ban on semiautomatic rifles, or similar things being discussed, is passed (could it even get through the House at national level? What is the state of state laws?) I suppose someone could challenge it.

[brooklynborndad]

heres a wiki summary of heller on the issue

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64. "

I think the rationale for overturning the handgun ban is relevant. They are what are overwhelmingly used for self defense - since SCOTUS said the right was heavily about SELF DEFENSE, to allow only, say hunting rifles, would undercut the rationale.

Assault weapons are not widely used for self defense, and are particularly dangerous.

see also
"The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[46]"

[Bigfoot424]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Human flu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I used an average of 40,000 per year for each cause over that period. For some reason I was thinking it's been 12 years since 9/11 so the million was probably a bit high but not by that great a number. In any case, 70,000-80,000 per year dwarfs the 250 annual average terror related deaths during that period that included 9/11.

About 12,000 homicides per year involve firearms:

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bottom line is you're 3 times as likely to die from either the flu or in a car accident as you are by being shot by another person.

Thanks for the info. I agree with the line in bold. Although I went to dozens, if not hundreds, of shootings during my LE career and very few of these victims died in comparison to the number shot. (Some weren't really victims) The vast majority of those shot were either shot by a known assailant (Friend, family member, drug dealer etc) There are truly very few people shot by someone they do not know.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Bigfoot424

Thanks for the info. I agree with the line in bold. Although I went to dozens, if not hundreds, of shootings during my LE career and very few of these victims died in comparison to the number shot. (Some weren't really victims) The vast majority of those shot were either shot by a known assailant (Friend, family member, drug dealer etc) There are truly very few people shot by someone they do not know.

Like how nearly all the kids on milk cartons were custody cases or runaways. I'd have to look it up but I think the number of stranger kidnappings reported by the FBI each year is fewer than 20.

I heard some crime expert on the radio the other day comment that the world has never been as safe as it is now.

[FindingZen]

This is the second thread related to the Newtown CT tragedy that has gone off-topic from its original NOVA-centric subject matter. Again, the Great Debates and Politics forums are more appropriate venues for broader conversation.

Closed.